RESULTS: Women and girls comprise one-third of people who use and inject drugs globally. There is substantial variation in HIV prevalence in this population, between and within countries. There is a pronounced lack of data examining HIV risk among particularly vulnerable subpopulations of women who use and inject drugs, including women who have sex with women, transgender women, racial and ethnic minority women, and young women. Women who use and inject drugs experience stigma and discrimination that affect access to services, and high levels of sexual risk exposures.
CONCLUSIONS: There are significant gaps in our understanding of the epidemiology of drug use and injecting among women and girls and HIV risk and prevalence in this population. Women are frequently underrepresented in studies of drug use and HIV risk and prevalence among people who inject drugs, limiting our understanding of possible sex differences in this population. Most research originates from developed countries and may not be generalizable to other settings. A great deal of work is needed to improve understanding of HIV among particularly vulnerable subpopulations, such as transgender women who use drugs. Better data are critical to efforts to advocate for the needs of women and girls who use and inject drugs.
METHODS: We conducted an analysis of cross-sectional governmental data collected from seven countries in the region with compulsory drug detention centres, namely Cambodia, China, Lao PDR, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Viet Nam. We computed descriptive data provided by government representatives for the period between 2012 and 2014.
RESULTS: The total number of people in compulsory detention centres overall decreased by only 4% between 2012 and 2014. In 2014, over 450,000 people were detained in 948 facilities in the seven countries. While only two countries decreased the number of compulsory detention centres, most countries increased the number of people detained.
CONCLUSIONS: In spite of international calls for the closure of compulsory detention centres, the number of facilities and detained people remained high in the seven countries included in the analysis. These officially reported figures are concerning regarding access to effective drug dependence treatment and given the potential for additional human rights abuses within compulsory detention centers. Further concerted policy and advocacy efforts should support transition of treatment for people with drug dependence towards human rights-based and evidence-based drug dependence treatment. Expansion of existing drug and HIV services in the community rather than compulsory treatment modalities will effectively address the region's drug and HIV burden.
METHODS: 126 detoxified heroin-dependent patients, from an outpatient research clinic and detoxification programme in Malaysia, were randomly assigned by a computer-generated randomisation sequence to 24 weeks of manual-guided drug counselling and maintenance with naltrexone (n=43), buprenorphine (n=44), or placebo (n=39). Medications were administered on a double-blind and double-dummy basis. Primary outcomes, assessed by urine testing three times per week, were days to first heroin use, days to heroin relapse (three consecutive opioid-positive urine tests), maximum consecutive days of heroin abstinence, and reductions in HIV risk behaviours over 6 months. The study was terminated after 22 months of enrolment because buprenorphine was shown to have greater efficacy in an interim safety analysis. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00383045.
FINDINGS: We observed consistent, linear contrasts in days to first heroin use (p=0.0009), days to heroin relapse (p=0.009), and maximum consecutive days abstinent (p=0.0007), with all results best for buprenorphine and worst for placebo. Buprenorphine was associated with greater time to first heroin use than were naltrexone (hazard ratio 1.87 [95% CI 1.21-2.88]) or placebo (2.02 [1.29-3.16]). With buprenorphine, we also recorded significantly greater time to heroin relapse (2.17 [1.38-3.42]), and maximum consecutive days abstinent than with placebo (mean days 59 [95% CI 43-76] vs 24 [13-35]; p=0.003); however, for these outcomes, differences between buprenorphine and naltrexone were not significant. Differences between naltrexone and placebo were not significant for any outcomes. HIV risk behaviours were significantly reduced from baseline across all three treatments (p=0.003), but the reductions did not differ significantly between the three groups.
INTERPRETATION: Our findings lend support to the widespread dissemination of maintenance treatment with buprenorphine as an effective public-health approach to reduce problems associated with heroin dependence.